Isn't 1920x1080 considered "full HD" - it seems all three would be capable of that. Also, would the 17 vs. 24 Mbps be that noticeable? I'm after good vacation videos, band concerts, swim meets, etc... not a professional videographer.

Isn't 1920x1080 considered "full HD" - it seems all three would be capable of that. Also, would the 17 vs. 24 Mbps be that noticeable? I'm after good vacation videos, band concerts, swim meets, etc... not a professional videographer.

Opinions? Suggestions?

Click to expand...

Early HDV cameras created 1080 (1920x1080) by extrapolation from smaller sensors. "Full HD" has come to mean that there's a 1:1 (or better) ratio of pixels from sensor to image.

Differing opinion: 17 to 24 Mbps is not trivial. If everything you shoot is "spot on" you may never see the difference, but color correcting HDV footage is an iffy proposition at best, and working with 30-40% less data is going to make a difference.

Early HDV cameras created 1080 (1920x1080) by extrapolation from smaller sensors. "Full HD" has come to mean that there's a 1:1 (or better) ratio of pixels from sensor to image.

Differing opinion: 17 to 24 Mbps is not trivial. If everything you shoot is "spot on" you may never see the difference, but color correcting HDV footage is an iffy proposition at best, and working with 30-40% less data is going to make a difference.

Click to expand...

No HDV camera records at full HD. They scale not because of CCD sizes, but because of the HDV-2 encoding method of using non square pixels. HDV-1 uses 720p encoding and uses square pixels. But regardless, a straight hdmi output of a live feed from a HV30 is 1080p since it isn't being encoded to HDV.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.